Life and Cancer: A Reaction Paper to "The Rhetoric of Cancer"

            The Rhetoric of Cancer is a documentary podcast of BBC, narrated by a man named Andrew Graystone, who himself is a victim of cancer. He talks about here his journey in his search for finding the right language to use when talking about cancer; for the masculine, military language people often use seems to liken cancer to this enemy of the body and the body as this warzone for this fight, this battle between the cells of the body and the body of the man.

In this journey, he meets with Dr. Wendy Makin of Christie Hospital, the hospital he was diagnosed in, to discuss how clinicians talk about cancer to their patients. He then meets with Natasha Hill, a director of brand and strategic marketing at Cancer Research UK to talk about the language used in advertising campaigns. He also discusses with Michael Overduin of the School of Cancer Sciences in Birmingham University about the language used upon discussing cancer at a research level. He also meets with Jim Cotter, a priest and writer who is also a victim of leukemia. And lastly, he shares all of his findings with theologian Dr. Paula Gooder who has a special interest about our relationships with our bodies, illness and death.

           Personally, what I liked the most about it was learning how cancer affected the lives of various people, not only those who became victims of it but to those who research about it, study it, diagnose it, etc. It affected those who have cancers themselves in the worst way, but it also somehow was a gift to them. Like how Andrew described it, it was like an unwelcome visitor to their lives, to their bodies who might lead them to their death but might also lead them to this enlightened life to live their lives to the fullest. In one way or another, they had to learn how to live with cancer and not battle it for it’s just their own, it’s part of their own bodies. Cancer is simply this visitor you want to be removed from your body, these particular cells to simply leave you. But it is technically not to be fought, not to be destroyed, because one way or another, it is part of you, your body and essentially your life.

Audrey Anne A. Arocha

2012-51626

Morality and Monsters: A Reaction Paper to "Bride of Frankenstein (1935)"

            Balance is a difficult thing to achieve. Whether simply physically or on the topic of science versus the morality of innovation, it is difficult to keep to that thin line between right and wrong when ambition cuts in. The 1935 American horror film Bride of Frankenstein, a sequel to Frankenstein (1931), talks about Victor Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorious creating a “bride” to Frankenstein’s Monster from the previous film and how this ambition ended badly.

            The film, in a nutshell, talks about how Dr. Pretorious ambitioned on being able to create monsters, create a world of his own. This desire led him to the idea of creating another creature to mate with Frankenstein’s monster and to do whatever it takes to do this, no matter how immoral it can be. I think, in its plot alone, this film shows how desiring something so bad can make you forget your moral principles, may it be on the matters of science or otherwise, losing balance because of ambition can lead you to the dark side, lead you to thinking you can alter nature and the world. In this film’s case, I think that is shown on how Pretorious turned into more of a monster than the Monster was, losing his morality and his balance, because of his desire, his ambition for science and innovation, his ambition to be God.

            This is furthered more by the film’s rendering of the Monster as dumb, as simply a creature created by man incapable of dialogue and proper speech. I think the use of this characterization was so that the Monster would simply be viewed of just that, a monster. It was so that the characters in the film wouldn’t have a reason to empathize with him and the viewers would be able to understand how a creation gone wrong, although misunderstood, would be a creation with a life being hunted by men. In short, the film successfully showed how a misunderstood creature made by man could be capable of more good than man himself; it successfully showed how science and morality should be balanced and what it could do when it’s not.

Audrey Anne A. Arocha

2012-51626

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

The Bride of Frankenstein is an American horror film released on 1935. It is directed by James Whale, adapted from Mary Shelley’s novel entitled Frankenstein. It is the sequel of Frankenstein, also by James Whale, which was released on 1931.

            The movie shows that even before, people, especially those belonging to the scientific community, have been attempting to create life. And in order to accomplish this, they resorted to immoral and gruesome ways. And in this case, Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorius used human corpse to create a mate for the monster, a creature they created using the same method.

 I found this movie to be quite similar to The Fly, a movie we also watched in class, in a way that both movies generally feature scientists trying to meddle in things not meant to be meddled in just for the sake of the success of their experiments and gaining knowledge.

I think that the line that separates morality and science should always be clear. And people counducting experiments using immoral means should always remember that they are humans first and scientists second.

I have read the book by a couple of years ago, but since what we’ve watched in class was the sequel, I couldn’t know for sure if there are any differences between the original book and the movie Frankenstein. But the monster in the book could talk and could participate in coherent conversations while the monster in the movie was made dumb. The creators of the movie probably had a number of reasons for doing this, but my guess is by making the monster inarticulate, he became more terrifying because he wouldn’t be able to to justify his existence and explain his actions, meaning there wouldn’t be any way for the normal people to understand him. Furthermore, since he couldn’t hold a sound conversation, he became more seperated from the community. Because of these, he was shown in a bad light. And this helped in sending the message to the viewers, which is to never meddle in human life because the results will only be catastrophic and, in the end, unsuccessful.

Barbosa, Camille Anne C.

2013-01010

            

Reaction paper: Bride of Frankenstein

Reaction paper: Bride of Frankenstein

            Bride of Frankenstein is a 1935 American horror film which is the first sequel to Frankenstein in 1931. It is about Victor Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorius creating a mate for a Monster.

            In this film, it can be greatly shown that because of human’s (scientists) desire to discover and make new things and even creatures can be the reason for them to do immoral and unethical things. The Monster was created from a dead body. In reality, life cannot be and should not be returned after death because it is a natural phenomenon and part of God’s plan for everyone. And for the Mate, the doctor ordered one of his servants to kill a young lady to have a functional heart. Who says anyone can destroy a person just because he wants to and he needs to?

            The difference between the movie adaptation of the monster and in the book is that the monster was not able to carry a decent conversation and was made dumb. If the Monster were given the ability to talk, the he could explain to people his situation and eventually people would understand him and accept him in their society. But the Monster’s inability to talk worked and was a success to show that the Monster is not normal or he is different which made everyone freak out and get scared.

Regina Alyssa L. Bargola

2013 - 68055

Science and Morality: The Bride of Frankenstein

The Bride of Frankenstein is an American horror movie directed by James Whale released in 1935. The story was from the book of Mary Shelley, Frankenstein. It is a sequel to Frankenstein in 1931. It was a story of how Frankenstein created a mate for the Monster, which is also his creation. The film started with the revelation that the Monster and Henry Frankenstein have survived in the fire. The Monster started to ravage the village and the people. Meanwhile, Henry Frankenstein was with his wife, Elizabeth and wants to settle a peaceful life with her. However, Dr. Pretorius wants to create another life-sized monster but this time a woman who could be a mate for the Monster. Dr. Pretorius and the Monster kidnapped his wife and so he was forced to agree. They successfully created a mate for the Monster. However, the Mate rejects him and the film ended with the explosion in the lab wherein Henry and Elizabeth were the only ones to survive.

Man was not meant to experiment in the works of God. This is what the film teaches about morality.  No one could give life and create a human except God. Anything that man dabbles in the works of God will lead to devastation, terror and sorrow. Like in the film, man tried to create and give life but what he had created was a Monster that put lives in danger. Also, science played the important role. It is the reason behind the creation of the Monster and the Mate. It is the exceeding ambition of the two that cause the whole situation. They appear to use knowledge that surpasses what mortals only could have even edging upon wisdom of God.  The film and the book reflect how important morality and science roles are in the life of man. This film portrays that the role of science in man’s life is limited. It could not exceed to the extent that it contradicts the morals in which the people and the society abide.

I think that the Monster was made dumb to add horror and scare to the film. It was changed to make the character more effective. Also, to emphasize that creation made by man through the help of science, if it surpasses the limitations, will result to monstrous forms that will destroy and devastate mankind.  I think it did work in the film.  

-Kimberly Pacle

2013-02319

A New Look on Cancer

The Rhetoric of Cancer is a BBC-produced podcast which was released on the 19th of November, 2013. It focuses on Andrew Graystone and his journey towards cancer. For background purposes, Andrew was a cancer patient for 3 years and was having trouble trying to find a language to explain his cancer experience.

As knowledge to many, slogans all around have one central theme, which is to fight cancer. This suggests a military point of view where in we all have to fight against cancer in order to stop it. This is something that Andrew was against. He couldn't understand why he should see cancer as a fight or as a battle because in the first place he doesn't want to set off a civil war within his own body.

He went to different experts and found out that the concept of "fighting" cancer started after WWII and since then we haven't really questioned this concept but instead just accepted it and used it. One of the people Andrew talks to explains the flip side of seeing cancer, which is to see it as something to live with. By seeing cancer like this, we wouldn't have to be constantly thinking that we can't win the battle. We wouldn't have to be thinking of cancer as a threat. It should be seen as something to teach us. Why must we fight it? Why can't we just remove it without fighting it? Andrew says "If I battle my cancer I’m putting myself in conflict against myself whereas St Francis of Assisi – who had long-term illness himself – is said to have spoken about viewing his as a 'sister illness' and to have embraced it like a family member. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to have cancer, but I warn you that when I die, if any one says that I have lost my battle against cancer, I will personally come back and haunt them."

I think this is a refreshing way to view cancer. All this time, we have been seeing cancer as an enemy, or as a terrorist in our bodies. We have viewed cancer as something that must be defeated by all costs. We should see it, not as a war between good and evil, but as a reminder that death really does exist. It is the inescapable reality of life. And we aren't all going to reach that destination the same way. We should call it as "nature's calling" that this might be our time, so make the most out of it. For me, it even seems a bit advantageous because at least you know the approximated time you have left on Earth. Unlike others who die by means of car accidents and such.

Let's see cancer as a way of re-evaluating our lives and making the most out of what we have left.

Mayumi Katrina B. Rix

2013-14322